Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Calum McSwiggan claimed to be targeted for a "hate crime" southern Hollywood.

Here is his statement, his statement analyzed, and the findings of the investigation.

I. On instagram and face book, McSwiggan wrote:

“Last night was the worst night of my life and I’m really struggling to find the words to talk about it. After one of the most wonderful weekends at VidCon we went out to a gay club to celebrate, and towards the end of the evening I was separated from my friends and beaten up by three guys.

“I’ve never felt so terrified to be a gay man in the public eye"

II. The Analysis

It is so that our statements reveal us:

“Last night was the worst night of my life and I’m really struggling to find the words to talk about it.

Note the struggle is qualified with "really" as he posts it for the entire public to read.

After one of the most wonderful weekends at VidCon

where someone chooses to begin a statement is always important. For him, it began with "really" struggling to find words, but this principle is also important to note where one begins the statement of an assault.

An assault is very 'unclose and personal' and the language will reveal this. It is an invasion of personal space, and it is responded by extreme elevated hormones, impacting the victim and the victim's recall, later on.

Here we note that he begins first with the struggle for words, which he qualified, but then he moved to the element of "time" in his statement.

"After" what?

One of the most wonderful weekends...

This is to address not only how "wonderful" this particular weekend was, but to do so in comparison to other wonderful weekends, of which this is only "one" of such.

This is not something expected from a victim of a physical assault.

we went out to a gay club to celebrate,

Here the victim of an assault immediately moves from beginning his statement without the pronoun "I", ("last night") to the pronoun "I" used to describe a qualified verbal struggle, to "we" telling us:

a. he was not alone

b. what kind of club he went to

c. why 'we' went to a club

This is a lot of information given to us before the assault and shows the priority of what was on his mind as he typed the statement.

Consider experiential knowledge in recall will be accompanied by the hormonal increase that imprinted the event upon the brain. We look for, and expect, evidence of such.

and towards the end of the evening

Instead of telling us of the assault, the lengthening of time is given, further delaying the "main event" of an assault.

I was separated from my friends

Passive voice used: "I was separated" avoids telling us the responsibility for how this separation took place and should, by itself, continue to cause the analyst pause as to the veracity of the statement.

and beaten up by three guys.

Note that he gave a lengthy delay, not only in the number of words or characters (letters) used, but in the quality of time passing. He wants us to know, before he was assaulted:

1. It was the worst night of his life

2. He really struggles to find the words

3. He had a wonderful weekend

4. He has had a number of wonderful weekends

5. He considers social media his way of "talking" about it

6. He wants us to know where he went

7. He wants us to know why he went there

8. He tells us that he is thinking about what he did during this evening (another psychological delay)

9. He wants us to know he was with others

10. Then he wants us to know that he was not with others, but conceals how this separation took place

Finally, using passivity, "was beaten up by three guys."

By its form, the analyst should see it as "unreliable."

By its form and language, the analyst should see it as deceptive.

Then we have his 2nd reference to emotions; the first being the struggle to really find the words to talk, and now here, the words that follow being "beaten up" are his emotion. This is the final clue that indicates deception: the artificial placement of emotion:

The Reliable Denial is psychologically strong. This is the entire point of it: it is not the uttering of magic words. This, too often, is an error made by analysts which ends up discouraging the new analyst, and fueling criticism of the system. Although it is appealing to think that someone who says they did not do it allows for "instant knowledge", the complexity of human nature, as seen or evidenced in language (and behavior) tells us something to the contrary.I have used the example of Governor Chris Christie but there is another popular one with the release of a book by Amanda Knox in which she wrote "I did not kill my friend, Meredith." When it takes someone the better part of a decade to make such a claim, this should be considered part of an overall late-to-the-party denial. Analysis of the statements made by Amanda Knox conclude that she did not necessarily inflict the fatal blow into the victim, but the language is clear:She was present for the assault, was deceptive, and shows guilty knowledge of the crime. One of her statements, in particular, is of great value to study the language of sexual assaults. With Governor Christie, I asked him about it when I heard him give a speech in Maine. He was a marvelous speaker, fascinating and in command of the audience. He did not change my conclusion, however. "I did not kill my daughter, Jonbenet."Recall this from the lips of John Ramsey. Yet, consider what he said well before this, and that a statement analyst has specifically flagged his words, publicly in the media, for not only deception, but association with childhood sexual abuse. After all the analysis, he not only gave the denial but used the proper social introduction. This, too, is late. The Reliable Denial does not have a need to defend itself. This is not only true (and applicable) for reliable denials, but assertions as well. In filling out a job resume, most people make errors when it comes to dating of jobs, leaving them hesitant to not qualify their words. This is "appropriate weakness." Yet, when asked about a specific, such as a job qualification, and the assertions made about one's own qualifications, they can boldly say, "it is true." In this is meant that it does not feel compelled to protect itself. This "wall of protection" and "truth confirmation" are the topics of this article.I. The Psychology of the Reliable DenialThe strength, psychologically, of the truth, is the best defense. The defense is so strong, that it may not even 'take the field.'"Because I told the truth, that's why!" becomes a powerful attitude that the investigator/interviewer immediately senses. This boldness is sensed within the words, just as plainly as the boldness of a liar, who is putting up his false muscles and flexing unnecessarily. The weakness of the liar is found in several ways:1. 'Rhetorical' Questions2. Tangents3. Bearing the Burden of ProofThe deceptive one asks questions that are posed as "rhetorical", that is, questions of which no answer is anticipated but even this may possess an element of deception: The deceptive one is really asking questions. "Why would I steal the jewelry when my husband gives me plenty?"Thus, the deceptive one has:a. shown weakness in her denial of theftb. posed a mystery for us to solve. There is an answer as to why someone with so much jewelry would still steal. The experienced interviewer always notes how interested the subject is in the answer. It is, in a form, a fishing expedition to learn if the investigator has discovered the motive of the crime. This has sometimes come across terribly foolish:"Why would I molest a child? I am a married man!" Or even worse:"Why would I molest her? I am a normal male!" Both are revelatory. II. The Confirmation of Truth"I told the truth" or "I am telling the truth,"A. This must be "aimed" at the statement, itself. B. It must not be altered.It is said that "no man can lie twice", as coined by Avinaom Sapir (LSI) in which he quotes a reference from the Babylonian Talmud. The explanation is as such:The subject affirms, for example, that he did not do it. This is expressed in a manner that is psychologically strong; he cares not (or very little) for proof. Although this is often the subject of Hollywood, in life it is not so. The 'devil may care' dismissive attitude is strong: the burden of proof is upon another, and not the accused. Why? Because he didn't do it. This reveals a confidence that says "it is impossible to prove that which did not happen" and may psychologically "walk away" or distance himself from it. This layer of protection is powerful and should not be underestimated. Experienced interviewers sense it; inexperienced interviewers misinterpret it, and often take it as a personal insult. The words "I" and "truth" must be heard while the subject is addressing his denial. This is key. I have heard deceptive subjects 'finally' give a denial that appear reliable, though the delay itself makes it unreliable, only to answer the question as to why I should believe him say,"I am telling...I told you, this is it..." breaking off from telling the truth. Recently, one deceptive one said,"I am telling, because, I am telling you the honest truth." He just admitted that there is the "truth" and there is the "honest truth" about the crime of which he has been accused. Consider the 'wall of protection' that the reliable denial provides, linguistically, which needs no assistance. On rare occasion, a suspect who is intellectually challenged may not realize he needs to deny the allegation. This is rare but it has happened. For the most part, the criminal mind considers itself clever and if you hear:"Why would I steal the jewelry?""I would never steal the jewelry.""I have all the jewelry I need!"eventually, the guilty will say,"I didn't steal the jewelry" but has just exemplified the principle boundary of the reliable denial: Adding to it, with the preface statements, means it is no longer reliable. Uttering a few 'magic words' will cause the new analyst, or the investigator who has only been trained in introductory statement analysis, to commit a grievous error. Should he clear the suspect, only to have the suspect confess to another investigator, he will be discouraged, and the science discredited. Our complete course, with the subsequent ongoing monthly training, will prepare the investigator to reach the level of proficiency. Click here to enroll

Monday, June 27, 2016

Every so often I like to recommend a book that I believe readers of Statement Analysis will appreciate. I have two books for summer reading to recommend today1. "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin DeBecker, which I will address in a separate post. My daughter Christina's dream is to be a criminal psychologist with the FBI and this book was recommended to her by a professional, knowing her age (16). 2. The book pictured, "Now With My Daughter" by Terry Vaugh. It is a "Dad's guide to screening dates and boyfriends", as a loving father embraces a responsibility that culturally has all but disappeared. Who knows what's best?A. The 16 year old girl?B. The 40 year old father?C. The Political Elite If you believe Hollywood's versions of father-daughter relationships the answer is A.If you are able to discern through propaganda and narrative...If you believe Washington, the answer is C who will first determine if your daughter is really your daughter, and then cast derision upon fathers such as Terry for loving their daughters and impeding the folly that says, "follow your heart" which has led to more than a little heartache and heartbreak in reality. This is the cry of the undiscerning who think laws will make good parents and elected officials know more than parents, and, in fact, there is no right and there is no wrong, unless you disagree. The author takes his responsibility as a parent seriously. Readers will enjoy his writing style. This is an enjoyable book and one that may be well out of step with culture, but so marvelously affirming to teenage girls who thrive on the love of a father.

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Regrettably, when one does not go beyond the basics, errors are unavoidable. A Reliable Denial is not a set of "magic words" that, once said, ends the issue. Recall Governor Chris Christie's speech on "Bridgegate" where he spoke for almost 40 minutes before issuing a denial. For some, the "magic words formula" cleared him. It did not clear him of the denial of having knowledge of the delays.

The Reliable Denial consists of three components.If it has less than 3, or more than 3, it is no longer reliable. It simply means that if the subject didn't do it, he is not communicating this very well.Context is key. An item of jewelry went missing from a store in which the tag was found on the floor. Denial A"I know I didn't steal it. I didn't. I know I didn't steal it. Why would I? Why would I when I have a husband that will buy me any jewelry I want, any time. Look at my jewelry. Do I look like a shoplifter to you?"Denial B"I know I didn't take it. I came in here to shop for jewelry. I was minding my own business when the manager come running over here and gets in my face, blocking the door. I am shopping for my fiancé and our anniversary. Denial C"Well, here is what happened. I was at the store shopping when this manager starts yelling that I have the ring and give it back. I says to him 'I didn't steal any ring' and what are you talking about? Why would I steal a ring? I am minding my own business there and this guy is nuts like I did it."The investigator must carefully listen and do his best avoiding interpretation. As human nature is complex, so is human language and although he may interview all 3 suspects, it is vital to remember some things in the Quality of a Denial1. When did the denial appear? 2. How long did it take the subject to issue it? 3. Before he issued it, was the subject aware of the accusation?4. If so, what did he say to it?5. How often did the subject avoid issuing a reliable denial before finally issuing it? This is a judgment by the analyst that reduces the chances of being taken by the "magic words" notion. *Please note:Humans do a very unreliable job at recounting conversations. They are recounted in a most unreliable manner. Why?Interpretation. In listening to audio recordings of my interviews and comparing them to my dictation, I found that I often corrected grammar. Yet, this is only a small section of that which can go wrong. When we relay conversations with others, we are notoriously unreliable unless we take great pains to recall (which means hormonal increase due to emotion; emotion, itself, can work against us), because we often report what we think the person meant, and what we wished we had said. A striking example of honesty in this area is the self correction that comes, often later, in the recall process. "I don't think I told him to stay put. I meant that but what I said was 'hold on.' I apologize."Note carefully: There are lots of issues in the 3 denials but specifically:Denial C"Well, here is what happened. I was at the store shopping when this manager starts yelling that I have the ring and give it back. I says to him 'I didn't steal any ring' and what are you talking about? Why would I steal a ring? I am minding my own business there and this guy is nuts like I did it."This is unreliable report of conversation. It may have been said; it may have been said something like this, or it may have been what he thought he said, or even what he wished he said or even...what he is thinking now. He did not deny stealing the jewelry. That is not what he said. He only reported what he said. The "magic words" mistake is easy to commit, and more common than should be. Interestingly enough, the subject who avoids issuing a reliable denial but finally stumbles upon it, will often repeat it, almost like a mantra, gaining 'strength' in his lie. If you listen carefully as the repetition goes by, you will often find a slight alteration to it, as well as it used in combination with avoidance techniques. Next up: the confirmation of the denial in the strength of a Reliable Denial.

For training for your department, company or self, see Hyatt Analysis Services for opportunities including investigations, deception detection, vetting, employment interviewing and interview training.

Did Federal Prosecutor threatens Idaho Citizens and Media Free Speech to protect Islam? Note not only the words chosen, but the order in which they are presented.

“BOISE – The United States Attorney’s Office extends its support to the five-year-old victim of assault, and her family, at the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls.

“The United States Attorney’s Office further encourages community members in Twin Falls and throughout Idaho to remain calm and supportive, to pay close attention to the facts that have been released by law enforcement and the prosecuting attorney, and to avoid spreading false rumors and inaccuracies.

Grant Loebs is an experienced prosecutor, and Chief Craig Kingsbury is an experienced law enforcement officer. They are moving fairly and thoughtfully in this case. As Mr. Loebs and Chief Kingsbury informed the public, the subjects in this case are juveniles, ages 14, 10 and 7. The criminal justice system, whether at the state or federal level, requires that juveniles be afforded a specific process with significant restrictions on the information that can be released. The fact that the subjects are juveniles in no way lessens the harm to or impact on the victim and her family.

The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law. We have seen time and again that the spread of falsehoods about refugees divides our communities. I urge all citizens and residents to allow Mr. Loebs and Chief Kingsbury and their teams to do their jobs.”

Last year, Olson said this about Idaho. Note the use of the propaganda technique "guilt by association" as well as "diversion." Note "extremest ideologies" but nothing about Islamic terror, or the Koranic 'reward' of raping "infidels" and those conquered. The federal government wants to mentor "young people" and "educate parents" as new roles for the federal government to take as well as a government "forming relationships."

“We are at a critical time in our nation and in our own community – from the shooting at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, to anti-refugee and anti-Muslim sentiments expressed by groups and individuals in Idaho, to defiance in parts of some states to the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. There are many currents that seek to divide communities. Instead, we have to come together. We need to stand up and form strategies against those who espouse extremist ideologies and recruit others to engage in violent acts in our communities on their behalf. We want to mentor our young people, educate parents, identify solutions, and form closer relationships between refugees and Idahoans who have been here for generations.”

Friday, June 24, 2016

The quotes are few. Note, the FBI has announced that they have found no evidence of Mateen being gay, including no photographs, no text messages, no computer links, no apps, no accessing of gay dating sites, according to the LA Times.

ORLANDO -- A man who says he was Orlando shooter Omar Mateen's gay lover is speaking out following theattack on Pulse nightclub that left 49 people dead, and dozens more injured.

In an interview with Univision anchor Maria Elena Salinas, the man -- who was called "Miguel" to protect his identity -- said he first met Mateen on the gay dating app Grindr.

Univision reported the FBI told the network that investigators have spoken with this man, but a law enforcement official would neither confirm nor deny this to CBS News.

The official told CBS News senior investigative producer Pat Milton that Mateen was a frequent user of online dating sites seeking relationships with both men and women.

Men and women have come forward to the FBI claiming to have had a relationship with Mateen, according to the law enforcement official, and all of those claims are being investigated.

Miguel said in an interview with Univision that Mateen, who was killed by police during the rampage on the Pulse nightclub early on June 12, was gay. He described his relationship with Mateen as "friends with benefits."

He said the sexual relationship lasted about two months, and they met at a hotel in Orlando between 15 and 20 times.

"I believe this is not terrorism," Miguel said, despite investigators saying Mateen called 911 and posted to Facebook to pledge allegiance to ISIS during the rampage.

Rather, Miguel claimed Mateen was acting on revenge after being with a Puerto Rican man whom he later learned was HIV positive.

"He hate gay Puerto Ricans for all the stuff he did to him," Miguel said. "I believe this crazy horrible thing he did was for revenge."

Miguel said that Mateen's wife knew he was gay, and that his father forced him into an arranged marriage.

Miguel added that he and Mateen also talked about religion.

"He said Muslim religion is beautiful, beautiful religion, where everything is about love," he said. "Everybody is welcome. Gay, trans, bisexual... everybody."

Miguel said that Mateen never appeared to be violent and had a "threesome" with someone infected with HIV.

"He was looking for love," Miguel said. "He was looking to be embraced."

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that we are to fight terror with love.

The FBI said he had "cased" the club, while former senior FBI profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole told CBS News that doesn't seem likely.

"This to me suggests somebody that may have had sexual identity issues and may have actually been struggling with the idea that he himself was gay and thatwould add a different motive and a different perspective on the case," O'Toole said.

When at war, a nation must know what its enemy wants. This is done by learning the enemy's ideology. There is information and there is "disinformation" and, as Churchill said, the truth must be protected, sometimes, by deceit as war means survival.

When the Islamic terrorist opened fire in Orlando, he did so following an ideology that:

1. He publicly espoused

2. Is in writing for all to read

3. He learned in childhood from his father, who embraces the same ideology

4. He came from a nation that holds to this ideology and immigrated to the United States. 5. An ideology that has been consistently practiced for 1400 years without interruption nor change. Statement Analysis deals with deception, even if in propaganda form, but in islam, there is a prescribed deception called "Tacquia" which is very appealing as it is applied not only to Islam, but even in personal disputes among Islamists. What about when it comes from the mouth of an advisor to the White House?

Gamal Abedel-Hafiz.

In 2002, ABC reported that while he worked for the FBI he impeded investigations into Islamic terror. It is not known how much classified information he may have given to his fellow Muslims, but eventually, "push came to shove."He refused to wire tap a terror suspect. This brought the tension to the surface. ABC reported: "Perhaps most astounding of the many mistakes, according to Flessner and an affidavit filed by Wright, is how an FBI agent named Gamal Abdel-Hafiz seriously damaged the investigation. Wright says Abdel-Hafiz, who is Muslim, refused to secretly record one of al-Kadi’s suspected associates, who was also Muslim. Wright says Abdel-Hafiz told him, Vincent and other agents that “a Muslim doesn’t record another Muslim.”“He wouldn’t have any problems interviewing or recording somebody who wasn’t a Muslim, but he could never record another Muslim,” said Vincent.

Wright said he “was floored” by Abdel-Hafiz’s refusal and immediately called the FBI headquarters. Their reaction surprised him even more: “The supervisor from headquarters says, ‘Well, you have to understand where he’s coming from, Bob.’ I said no, no, no, no, no. I understand where I’m coming from,” said Wright. “We both took the same damn oath to defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic, and he just said no? No way in hell.”

When this news broke, he was not immediately fired but an investigation commenced.

After 22 years, he retired from the FBI and now is a Homeland Security Advisor to Barak Hussein Obama.

Like the United Nations, he believes America can be made safer if it has more Muslims and has less guns. He wants a national registry for guns.

This would be a list of gun owners that is national.

He also spoke about the terror suspect lists. He said keeping a list of terrorist is "useless" (as terror lists and no-fly lists were scrubbed away). Why was it "useless"?Because terrorists can legally buy guns. This presupposes someone who, in submission to the Koran, intends to kill as many "infidels" as possible, but will be restrained because he would not want to purchase a gun without the proper paperwork. We are supposed to believe this to be genuine, and not "tacquia."

This man's claim?'The list of gun owners is advised while the list of terror suspects is useless. '

Here is his quote on Orlando terror. Note the additional wording.

"He shouldn't have been able to buy a gun legally. He shouldn't. "

No such discussion about an illegal purchase?He said, "Even if Mateen had been on a terror watch list, or no fly list, that would not have prohibited him from legally buying weapons..."

He called the terror list and no fly list "useless" as he now advises another list would be useful.

Why would anyone, in obedience to the Koran, killing infidels and homosexuals in Orlando, concern themselves with legal gun purchase paperwork? The 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms was designed to make sure a tyrannical government could be resisted. This American constitutional element is not part of his culture nor upbringing.

Gamal Abedel-Hafiz is now consulting on the federal "counter terrorism extremism project" which has replaced Islamic terrorism with "right wing extremism" and has removed all instruction about the Koran and the ideology that drives the killings.

What happened in 2003?

Abdel-Hafiz was ordered fired in May 2003 by the FBI's top disciplinary officer for a variety of personal and professional problems, including mismanagement of 9/11 files and insurance fraud.

The ordered firing was overruled in 2004 by a special three man panel convened to hear the case. Newsweek reported that his reinstatement coincided with the politicians pushing the FBI to hire more Arabic speaking agents, regardless of any allegiance to Islam.

Once reinstated, the controversies continued finally culminating with what The New York Times reported: the reinstated Abdel-Hafiz was put in "Post-Adjuration Risk Management Program" in 2012 that stripped him of access to certain classified material that he was claiming was "his job" to have. This highlights the struggle within the federal agency dealing with sworn allegiance to the Constitution and protection of the American people against political interference.

With all of this, he is now advising the White House. As readers now know, Obama, himself, attempted to obscure the Islamic motive in Orlando, seeking to blame Christians, guns, the internet, homophobia, and anything other than obedience to the Koran.

While debating how the killer bought the guns, they seek to hide why the killer obtained guns.

When a former cop reported Mateen to local and federal law enforcement, he was cleared as a "victim of Islamophobia by his co-workers" and "did not pose a risk" of harm.

Islam is a supremacist ideology that teaches violent conquest, rape, death to those who refuse to submit to slavery, and death to those who criticize Islamic law (sharia), which assures that no reformation of Islam can ever take place.

Thus far in Ramadan 2016, the following has taken place:

1. Islamic Attacks: 144

2. Deaths: 1,058

3. Deaths Caused By Islamophobes Against Muslims: 0

4. Deaths Caused By All Other Religions: 0

Statistically, year by year, the "holy month of Ramadan" is the deadliest month of the year for non Muslims.

Since 9/11 there have been 28,671 lethal Islam attacks. In May of 2016 alone, there were 231 attacks, resulting in 1883 deaths with 2206 injured. There were 54 suicide blasts, in 31 different countries.

The "few psychos" or "lone wolf" tacquia is not supported by reality.

Islam is at war with the world. Britain seems to have understood this, even as the Islamists openly admitted that the EU courts went easier on terrorists, something the Queen openly stated.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

What does an advanced session look like?The last week of June's training should be one to "fasten your seatbelt." For those who have completed the initial training, they are eligible for both the Advanced Training Course, as well as ongoing monthly training that is broken down by both geographical (time) and experience. In an upcoming advanced training session, the team is given a statement by a victim of an assault. They must:

1. Analyze statement for truth. They must know if she is telling the truth, or if she is deceptive; and they must identify within a deceptive statement which parts of the statement are reliable, which are not, specifically.

2. Next, once the analysis is completed and they believe they know what happened, they are to re-visit the statement with their analysis, and seeks a psychological profile, in specifics, regarding the subject's personality type, including its impact upon the language.

3. With this profile, they are now to set up the interview strategy with specific questions to be asked. This may include collaterals' interviews.

4. They are now to predict, in specifics, the answers to the specific questions, based upon the profile.

5. Lastly, they are to predict the outcome of the case, itself, and where it will go.

When this is complete, they will then be addressed with the actual results of the case including the findings, and including the actual answers the subject gave to questions to see if:

A. Their analysis conclusion is correct

B. Their psychological profile matches both the subject's diagnosis and the elements she revealed

C . The questions posed

D. The predicted answers match the actual answers

This is the outworking of advanced work and it is exhilarating when the analyst has come to this point of knowledge.

The expectation?

100% accuracy in Statement Analysis

Accurate broad agreement on psychological

Accurate broad agreement on questions

Accurate prediction of the diagnosis, the language, and the specific answers given.

Lastly, if everything falls into place, not only will they 'know' the answers the subject is likely to give, but they should be able to broadly predict the outcome, based upon both the analysis, experience, and statistics.

The professional should have 100% accuracy in Statement Analysis and should have very high rate of accuracy in the psychological profile. With some diagnosis having definitions that blend, and some even having 'fallen out of favor' the accuracy can be in descriptive terms with strong predictive value. Whereas one says "borderline" another will say "oppositional": the 'diagnosis' is not specific, but its general traits. Professionals take correction gladly, embrace them, and push towards perfection. For training opportunities for your department, company, or for you as an individual, go to Hyatt Analysis Services and inquire how we can help your career.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Presently, there are reasons why analysis for the purpose of discerning deception, including propaganda, is becoming more popular. We are now part of a generation in which free speech is broadly under attack, as words are being given new definitions, and scientific fact is morphing into deception due to human emotion. This is not simply a phenomena facing the United States, but it is world wide, with the ruling elite seeking to exploit the masses by controlling freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In many cases, the press, itself, is complicit. It takes a sober mind to view this carefully. Next is the denigration of the successful that is part of our generation. Those who are successful are looked down upon for their success as exploitative, racist, privileged, and are said, en masse, to be 'stealing' from others. This self loathing is not just personal, but national and international. While countries that did not progress out of the status of "Third World" simply march into wealthy countries and demand money, the wealthy countries not only allow it, but encourage it. The laws of math are suspended, and there is enough "free" wealth for everyone, Venezuela notwithstanding, as schools have closed so teachers can wait all day on line to buy a loaf of bread. The successful were targeted in the Marxist ideology (except for athletes and entertainers) saying "you didn't build this" in institutionalized envy. The "redistribution of wealth" means forcibly taking it away from the successful, and it wades its way to the colleges where students "complain" about the work load, and wish to run Shakespeare out of the books because his success was not based upon the combination of genius and hard work, but of his skin color. This, while they remain in lit and warm buildings, without thanks to Thomas Alva Edison and the others who harvested elements of creation into energy. Next in institutionalized envy is the victim status mentality. Please keep in mind: in order to have a victim, you must have a victimizer: someone, or some group, must be vilified. Hitler chose the Jews and trumped science when it found, looking under a microscope, that there was no difference between Jewish blood and non Jewish blood. Today, the victims are those with psychological disorders who are confused about their sex. To obtain this victim status, someone had to be demonized. Then there is the courts' response to all of this: a continual siding with fraudulent complaint after complaint against the successful business owner. It has become so popular that it has created an immediate need for professionally trained analysts in both hiring and in protecting companies from the myriad of "victims" who know how to use a few special words, to get a court to grant them money their hands did not earn. It takes a sober-minded view. There is the de-criminalization of criminals that also has become popular. They are not "convicted felons" but "court-involved individuals" who the successful cannot ask them about their criminal record when being hired, says the government, unless the employer is...the government. This, too, creates a need for professional analysis. From major trends to business, to criminal investigations, the work of analysis is needed across the country and across the Western world perhaps as never before. In simply reading the newspaper, one must continually be alert for propaganda techniques by a ruling elite that wishes to "reeducate" the public. How much more intense is this when schools refuse to teach children to read, lest a correction impact their emotions in a negative way? Thus, the indulgence that creates emotionally tyranny. Statement Analysis is a science that has an element of art to it; especially in conclusions. Therefore, as such, it warrants corrections in incorrect or even deliberately abused applications: 1. Incorrect Application2. Incorrect Conclusion3. Exaggerated Claims4. Forced Conclusions5. Errant Principles6. Damaged Principles 7. Spurious ClaimsEmotions Over ruling reasonThe New York Times printed an article quoting the Apostle Paul, in the Book of Romans saying that it teaches that Christians are to put homosexuals to death. The problem?Paul listed offenses before God but did not teach that any such should be put to death. How many people think the New York Times is a reliable source of news for America today?

In another article on the "millions of migrants", it used listing to show the priority and order with:"Palestinians, Syrians, Afghanis, etc."There are virtually no Palestinian migrants. Those in Israel who say they are safer there than in Muslim countries are squelched or attacked. They are not fleeing Israel but migrating to it, in the name of their religion, which teaches the killing of all Jews, making a Jewish homeland an insufferable notion. The article went on to list Africa as the largest movement of people and did not even mention "Palestinians" again in spite of listing them "first" in the lengthy list. The anti-Israel bias notwithstanding, comments, for the most part, showed that readers saw through the propaganda. There is the Marxist "guilt by association" technique in which after Islamic terror, someone will say, "Islam does not have a monopoly on religious violence" as a form of deceptive propaganda. Islam is the only religion that calls for violent conquest, including rape. Looking at a lone bomber who is a religious fanatic who must, by necessity, go against his religion to commit murder is like walking into a psychiatric ward and seeing a violent red headed male and concluding, "Red headed males are the most violent of any males! "It is this foolish. Statement Analysis calls for a sober-minded view of life and many people report having an increase in awareness, if not some increase in discernment. It cannot work without a realistic understanding of human nature; one that is willing to always grow in depth, as human nature is most complex. Spurious claims may speak for themselves but an easy signal to spot is obsession with a case. Of recent years, the Madeline McCann case and the murder of Amanda Blackburn likely show the misuse (and sometimes abuse, which is deliberate) of analysis to force a conclusion.

In one case, the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey, a book by Andrew Hodges, "A Mother Gone Bad" randomly assigned meaning to any word, which was arbitrary in practice. Using this technique, one may say "this" means "that" anytime one chooses. If you know the case, it is interesting to read and some of the leakage may be accurate as the ransom note and the videos/books in the home match. Yet it is in the application that cannot be repeated objectively, therefore, just as it may 'hit' in one area, it is just as likely to 'miss' in another: get me a monkey, a dart board, and a choice of stocks to pick. There was an example of this in the McCann case where someone claimed to use "Statement Analysis" but only did the same thing in principle: interpreted what he wished to see within the statement. Scientific application means repeated tests with repeated expectations.

Gotta concentrate...gotta really concentrate

Hollywood has "instant deception detection" which has become popularized and is more akin to Facebook "psychics" than science. Those who work as professionals need the truth. The deeper they go; that is, the further professional study and application go in the professional setting, the more hesitant they are to make claims. This is a natural protection against error: An investigator cannot simply arrest someone on a whim or a hunch. When a team of analysts, including non-law enforcement, work on behalf of law enforcement, their work is going to be put to the rigorous standard of...life. This means that the interview will be conducted based upon the analysis, a polygraph administered, and a possible arrest and contestation in court. The analysis should withstand all the rigorous challenges posed to it, including a strong defense attorney's attacks. Truth has a way of forcing itself to the surface. Random Assignment of MeaningJonbenet Ramsey case is another good example. The book "A Mother Gone Bad" by Andrew Hodges is without principle. It takes anything, that is any single word, and is interpreted to mean anything the author wishes it to mean. Perhaps beneath this there is some 'leakage' but it is not only random, but it is arbitrary. It is not statement analysis, which is a principled science; that is, something that is applied repeatedly for the same results. The best way to view this book is to take its principles, and apply it to any statement, and attempt to make it mean anything you wish: it will work. Leakage is subjective and it is only viewed after thorough analysis and only considered a possibility to explore. It is, ultimately, to raise the question, "Why?" in so much as we need to learn why the subject chose this or that word in his statement. The "need to learn" presupposes that we already know, even if we have hints or hunches. In the Blackburn murder, the emotions trump reason and science, show not simply a lack of discipline, but a reinterpretation of wording and a casting off of principle. I have been surprised to read how bizarre the denigration of meaningful dialog has gone.B. Hollywood and FaceBookConsidering "instant deception detection" worked for Hollywood's "Lie to Me" TV show, it boomed a large number of "new experts" who took "micro expression" training and can "spot a liar instantly."Professionals look at such claims no different than Facebook "psychics" or snake oil salesmen who could never be trusted with investigatory work. As oft repeated, the scientist who did this research, himself, has said: He will not even attempt to declare 'deception indicated' unless he, himself, conducts the interview. This is to let us know that (a) he is not going to travel the country to conduct an interview and (b) he has no faith in his 'system'. It fails to recognize the intense labor and study that analysts go through. Like psychics, this too, appeals to those with a deep desire for recognition.C. The Number ThreeAlthough it was likely 'tongue in cheek' the comment about the Bible being discerned to be deceptive because it uses the number 3 grants me the opportunity to raise my concern about the use, misuse, and even abuse of this "number." For the opportunity to explain, I am grateful. Deception is Discerned in Intention It is not only folly to think that the Bible authors, representing more than 40 languages and hundred of years, intended to deceive their audiences, but somehow, through time, culture, language and geography, were able to "communicate" this deception. The "deception" is "caught" because they use the number 3, but that would be a disingenuous and deliberate abuse of a most minor and insignificant principle, thus the correction: The number three is "the liar's number" only in one specific application: Where the deceptive person must choose a number in which the number 1 seems too small, and the number 4 or 5 just seems too large. The person, in the midst of deception (even when technically truthful about so much else) chooses "3" as the number, with the exception being the number of drinks offered, when pulled over ("just two, officer.")It ends there. Or, at least it should. It is speculation. It is not part of LSI's SCAN technique and is not permitted to be used in LSI's training classes. What is it useful for? It's use means that the professional analyst simply takes note of its use and questions if it might be false; nothing more. There are many times that the number 3 arises in statements because it is truthful; in fact, the use of it truthfully far outweighs the findings of it as false; that is, made up. What does the 'analyst' do when someone is really attacked by 3 men? Or what does the 'analyst' do when the crime was committed at 3 o'clock?It is quite simple: it is noted and verified. Period. I sometimes feel badly for people when they write that they hesitated because they included the number 3 and did not want to seem deceptive. I sometimes post a correction, but it is difficult to keep up with. Yet to seriously make the assertion that the Bible is "deceptive" isn't Statement Analysis, or reason, and is deception, itself, and a discredit to any attempt to practice Statement Analysis and could mislead readers. The greatest minds for 20 centuries have sought to find error in the Bible, so as to make a publication of such, and have not found so. Yet, this, itself (inerrancy) is not even related to Statement Analysis which teaches: error is not deception.Statement Analysis 101: Deception is found in intention. "Johnny has a red car" is a reliable sentence. It does not mean it is true; it means that the subject is not attempting to deceive, based upon the language. To later learn that he has a red car simply points to error, not deception. This, then, becomes a claim that men writing from different nationalities, cultures, languages and in different centuries communicated with one another, using the number "3" to deceive readers. Although this is about misuse of analysis, and not inerrancy, itself, it is more akin to the claims of a "Facebook Psychic" than analysis. Consider in 1979 when it was popular to say, "Ronald Wilson Reagan, 6, 6, 6, is the antichrist" rather than read a bit of history about Nero, Greek, Latin and even the city of Pompei. The key here is:ignorance is easier. "If it don't fit, you must acquit" appeals to the masses and sometimes cannot be overcome...or so says, Lizzie Borden, Paul Revere, and Christopher Columbus, as well as so much else in history that has been turned into cartoonish poems or songs to obscure the truth. D. Slowing Down the Pace"You're lying! I see you are lying, too!"A single slip of a verb tense?One of the most honest and forthcoming investigators I know recounts events, habitually, in the present tense. His honesty stands out in his resolute refusal to conclude deception without overwhelming proof. If you were falsely accused, he would be your best friend. He will self-correct, at the drop of a word, to ensure accuracy. I listened to his recall of an event of which I knew the facts and as is his pattern within boundary: he was both accurate and entirely in the present tense. He relived the event, chalked with emotion of excitement highlighting the major points zealously. Why?His excitement was such because his team had just completed analysis and he was startled at the accuracy of their findings; down to little details of which they had no access to. Even after years of study, he was like a kid at Christmas recounting the specifics. Where one analyst saw "drugs", he gave an excited verification. Where another saw greed, he affirmed the finding of motive, and so on and so on. Imagine what the Facebook "lie detector" would do with this? "He just lied. Everyone is fooled. I am the only one who knew." We listen for patterns, deviations from patterns, and statistical reliability, and measure context, all as data coming together for a conclusion. It is not something that can be deeply studied or even learned from a blog, or a book. It needs the element of the surprises that human nature and complexity of language bring. This "I know when you are lying!" sounds great and the "instant knowledge" is very appealing but it is also something the professional won't touch but can only raise eye brows to. When a reader enters study, he or she generally expresses some level of surprise over just how difficult it is to maintain high levels of concentration over a statement, and how giving into the temptation of "knowing" seems to backfire repeatedly. Eventually, they learn to "slow down", put the brakes on, and keep the seatbelt fastened until "the conclusion of the matter" appears. True, it can be difficult waiting, but here in lies discipline: you cannot "jump" when a dozen professionals are about you, keeping you in line. It is a marvelous "safety found in a multitude of counselors." Human nature is complex; therefore, human speech is complex and the study of it is complex, howbeit, exciting! Recently, a detective (who excels in analysis) asked, "Am I seeing the deception of the crime, or is there another deception going on here that I am seeing?"I could not answer his question. It warrants much more work. It warrants hours. Yes, he conducted the interview, but because of what is on the line (the taking away of a man's freedom via arrest), he is not going to guess if the "smirk was deception, or a sinus condition" like the "instant knowing" spurious claims hold to, or if his unreliable denial was only unreliable, or was it deception. It is interesting to listen to the trained remark on some of the above, and how they learn just how much time and dedicated study is warranted. None claim to know "instant" deception, and even if suspected, would not allow this viewpoint to move ahead of them: they keep the pace slow deliberately. The slow, steady and sober-minded maintain and protect their well earned reputations. Lie To MeI have commented on the fascination of micro-expressions and have noted its failure to produce anything of value in discerning deception to the very point of its founder, Paul Ekman, refusing to discern deception even if he possesses the video of the interview which would include the ability to slow down, frame by frame, and pause to study the single micro expression for hours. He said he would "only" discern deception if he, himself, conducted the interview. If the instructor, who has dedicated his entire life to micro expression and deception, cannot tell deception in the very means he uses to teach others, why would anyone pay for the training? Botox might teach them a lesson or two, if not, Xanax will. He is not going to travel from state to state conducting any interviews for anyone but continues to sell the 'snake oil training' of watching a face expression by an actor or actress whiz by and as soon as you can say, "I got 100%" try it on everyone you know. His books are fascinating lengthy studies but the Hollywood take over has brought his work into question. It is like a man who pretends to be an activist for a movie suddenly finding himself acting in front of the United Nations as an "expert" in some world affair. He pretended, that's all. Once upon a time, we revered medical doctors, scientists, ministers, and lawyers in society, while grown men playing games, or pretending to be someone else, was of interest, but not taken very seriously. "My lord, I have no right to the airs I carry, for alas, I was, uh, how difficult to acknowledge, a, a, a...a stage actor, my lord and am ashamed of myself." said Mr. Carson on Downton Abbey. Knighthood was for courage under fire and racism was hatred based upon race. Like "psychic ability", claiming oneself to be an instant "lie detector" is appealing because it makes us "unique" and "gifted" (presupposing a gift giver) and allows us to feel purpose. It is not truth and it is akin to the "psychic" who's language does not proceed from experiential memory, and is deceptive. Even as "Discourse Analysis" grows from years and years of study and implementation, the conclusion of the matter is still of scientific structure. Whether you are viewing a criminal case, reading the news, or seek higher learning, the ancient "by thesweat of your brow" is neither negated nor suspended in any field of study, whether it be mathematics, chess, or analysis. Success comes from hard work. I have seen talent come into training. Lively minds, vivid imaginations and immediate and early success. Consider the 7 year old who is taught to play chess and almost instantly beats every adult around him. Now, take this same 7 year old and compare him to a 21 year old Grandmaster in chess. To reach this level, the 7 year old, most likely, will need to be taken out of school, and be given to chess study, full time, for the next 14 years to reach the level of Grandmaster, of whom he will now be one of 1522 in the world, according to FIDE, of whom 1489 are male (or feel like male) and 33 are female. How many other obviously gifted 7 year olds never go on to become a professional?We see success and think that it came easy for someone else. It is not so. We sometimes even enjoy saying "he got everything handed to him" or "school just comes easy to her" without recognizing what sacrifices the successful made to reach their level of competency. One young gifted female sat alone in her Ivy League school, isolated for being "pro business", even though it was, reluctant to admit, successful businessmen and women who built the very building that these special whining snowflakes sit comfortably in, as they tear down their own benefactors. Some do come to analysis with tangible talent. They begin breezing through lesson after lesson. Then comes some more difficult tests; complexity and competing principles, sometimes even colliding together. At this point, the talented sometimes express surprise. "It used to come so easy...what has happened to me?"I am always glad to hear this, in whatever form. Then comes the "iron sharpening iron" of working with other talented analysts in a team setting. I sometimes say, "Welcome to advanced analysis..." to encourage them now to push forward. Push forward, they do. "Yes, there are signals of sensitivity, but we do not know why" and"Yes, he is deceptive, but the deception appears unrelated to the allegation, we must dig further.""Yes, he has a need to explain, here, here and over here. Does this suggest hyper-sensitivity or could it be...contamination?"The student has now just graduated to a new, uncertain, scary but exciting level and is well on his or her way towards psychological profiling, interview strategy and tactics, and...justice. I recognize that the fantastic sells. Yet, it does not take much research into the "Baby Lisa" case to hear national media declare someone "the nation's leading lie detector" and hear him practice deception while avoiding saying "Deborah Bradley, Lisa's mom, didn't cause Lisa's death" directly. Even with training, one really can't lie.